If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | this should clarify it: | | http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm Interesting. I didn't know about that. Still a complex operation, though, with possible problems. it's not that complex, other than dealing with partial blocks. it's also been done by others, so there's no need to reimplement it again. use what's built into the os and/or a jpeg library. It doesn't seem like a rational way to deal with most images, especially in this case, where the JPG is going to be decompressed for further work anyway. his changes are localized so it's possible to leave most of the image lossless and only recompress the changed parts. some image editors do that. however, it's not worth the effort since there is no visible difference between uncompressed and high quality jpegs. do a subtraction to see what the loss actually is. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | | Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview": | https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg | According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program. note that he said 'apple's preview'. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | This would make sense to do three operations: | 1. Starting with the JPEG from my phone | | If you had an iPhone you could shoot RAW. | Then what free RAW program is he going to use to batch-process those images? UFRaw? That's the only one I know of and after trying it I bought Aftershot Pro. no need to restrict oneself to free, especially since the apps are typically a couple of bucks. He's just taking lots of phone shots, editing them and sharing them as greatly reduced JPGs. It seems to me that starting with RAW would be a bit like starting with fresh, organic oregano and adding that to a bottle of Ragu. It started out top quality, but it's unlikely anyone will taste the difference. Plus there's the cost of the oregano. raw is definitely overkill for photos posted to an email list, but the point is that shooting raw eliminates any degradation entirely, up until the very end. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Stijn De Jong" wrote | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas". | Do you call it something else? Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just because that's how Windows graphics works. It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel grid size while retaining the original image dimensions. -- best regards, Neil |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil
wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote: "Stijn De Jong" wrote | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas". | Do you call it something else? Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just because that's how Windows graphics works. It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel grid size while retaining the original image dimensions. Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the "Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word "Canvas" to describe the overall image. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On 2/15/2017 9:43 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:49 -0500, PeterN wrote: Common use for method of of adding canvas, in Photoshop. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bluecorps/2015/11/12/adding-more-space-to-your-photoshop-canvas/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhrQ1EyoTY Here is an example of an original file, and then the file with a canvas batch added automatically by Irvanview, and then that file annotated in three ways in Paint.NET (which does those three annotations better than any other free program alive that I know of). Please note I'm explaining below all the steps I do with batches of files that contain hundreds upon hundreds of files - but in this particular case, we're only working on a single file. STARTING POINT: 1,439 KB file that was 1,661x2,142 pixels. http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-med...1486597218.jpg 1. This is the original 1,439KB photo that I saved from the above URL: http://i.cubeupload.com/DAZw1N.jpg a. Irfanview: File Open fname.jpg b. Irfanview: File Thumbnails c. Thumbnails: Options Select all d. Thumbnails: File JPG Lossless Operations Lossless rotation with selected files e. Irfanview: File Start batch dialog with selected files f. In the batch dialog, I set the "Options" to resize to 800x600 and to save at 80% Quality (and nothing else). I also set the "Advanced" options to add a white canvas to the bottom. If I want, I can set a trillion other options, but I won't bother explaining them here. Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Options": http://i.cubeupload.com/l6gNYt.jpg Here is a screenshot of the Irfanview "Advanced" options: http://i.cubeupload.com/sz8Zar.jpg 2. This is the photo after Irfanview 80% batch resized it to 800x600 & Irfanview added a white canvas to the bottom: http://i.cubeupload.com/qfcHIm.jpg It is now 149 KB. 3. This is the photo after annotating with Paint.NET: http://i.cubeupload.com/wpMEIS.jpg It is now 187 KB. 4. This is the photo re-re-sized by Irfanview at 80% Quality: http://i.cubeupload.com/tYHmt8.jpg It is now 184 KB. Hmmm... again, it didn't show the almost doubling of size I normally see. I think the starting point photo is the difference, since I normally start with my own photos from my own camera, and not with photos from the web! I need to do the test again, but with my own photos! I have never used the freeware programs for processing and cannot compare them to PS. I have changed the canvas size many times in PS, and find it trivial to extend the canvas, on any side. As in many other objectives, there are several methods to extend the canvas. For my purposes a simple resize works just fine. -- PeterN |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On 2/15/2017 8:48 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip What was twisted? Do you mean his twisted mind has been cured? -- PeterN |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On 2/16/2017 12:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote: "Stijn De Jong" wrote | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas". | Do you call it something else? Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just because that's how Windows graphics works. It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel grid size while retaining the original image dimensions. Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the "Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word "Canvas" to describe the overall image. It's no more wrong than referring to "brushes", "paint bucket", "eraser" or any of the other tools that have no real connection to physical world objects of the same name. -- best regards, Neil |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
Follow-up-To: rec.photo.digital
In article , Neil wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:38:04 -0500, Neil wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:46 PM, Mayayana wrote: "Stijn De Jong" wrote | Here is where I get the word "canvas" from. | | When I need a colored (usually white) area on the side (usually bottom) of | an image for a caption, I can use either Irfanview or Paint.NET to create | that white space, both of which refer to the white space as a "canvas". | Do you call it something else? Canvas seems fine. I just never noticed the term before. If I'm adding a white stripe I would paste the image onto a larger white image and merge the two. If I need a white stripe in the existing image I'd paint it with a shapes tool. I guess I've never conceptually thought of the abstraction of a canvas that holds the image. I'm always thinking in terms of a bitmap because in actual practice that's what it always is. "Adding canvas" would be accomplished by painting a bitmap onto a second larger bitmap, just because that's how Windows graphics works. It is not any more a Windows graphics convention than it is for any other OS. The early digital "paint" programs (I'm referring to the 1970s) carried over many terms and concepts from physical painting techniques, where artists often painted on "canvases", in order to help them adapt to the tools used in those programs. It is in that same context that "adding canvas" would mean increasing the overall pixel grid size while retaining the original image dimensions. Adobe Photoshop has a drop-down that allows the user to adjust the "Canvas Size". I see nothing wrong or unusual about using the word "Canvas" to describe the overall image. It's no more wrong than referring to "brushes", "paint bucket", "eraser" or any of the other tools that have no real connection to physical world objects of the same name. Oki... So this is a Microsoft project that wants donations... "It started development as an undergraduate college senior design project mentored by Microsoft, and is currently being maintained by some of the alumni that originally worked on it. Originally intended as a free replacement for the Microsoft Paint software that comes with Windows..." http://www.getpaint.net/donate.html -- teleportation kills |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:04:21 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
The method sounds handy insofar as that IV can do a batch operation, but you end up damaging the images more than necessary. As noted earlier, if you first resave as BMP or TIF the result will be better and IV should be able to batch-process those. The only reason for JPG at all is to be able to send a small file. On Linux I batch Imagemagick commands which do all the same things (using Kolourpaint freeware to perform the manual task of adding text, curved arrows, and bounding boxes). Kolourpaint is not as good as is Paint.NET for those three basic tasks: 1. Curved arrows 2. Bounding boxes 3. Text captions But it is the best I could find on Linux. Luckily, on Linux, I can move the rotation commands to the top, so, converting to TIF is something that can put in the first few lines of the shell script; but when batching in Irfanview on Windows, I don't know what order Irfanviews uses for a conversion process. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:31:31 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
Almost. Convert to TIF or BMP would be the first step. You want to avoid any operations on the JPG. Don't do *anything* with the image until you convert it to a lossless format. Thanks for that clarification to *first* convert to one of the many lossless formats. That's trivially easy to do in batch with Irfanview, so, that's a great suggestion. Since I email the annotated shrunken results out to a list, I eventually must shrink them (generally to 800x600 or to 640x480 if there are more than 25 or so). In general, I snap each day about 100 pictures (rough estimate as the number changes depending on the topic, where sometimes it's upwards of a few hundred pictures and other times it's as low as a few dozen). Then I copy them over to the computer and operate on them on the computer (either Linux or Windows). The captioning is the time-consuming part because it can't be automated. Each picture has unique captions, arrows, circles, etc., similar to the examples already previously shown. While I have scripts on Linux which use ImageMagick commands to do all the things (and more) that Irfanview does, what I love about Irfanview is that I can just click buttons to do all the batch commands (so Irfanview is, in effect, easier than Imagemagick batch scripts). The only thing I don't know about Irfanview is what *order* it batches things, so, for example, if I click the buttons to both crop and convert the JPG to TIF, I don't know the order that Irfanview does that set of operations. On Linux, I would just move the Imagemagick conversion of JPG to TIF to the top of the batch file so I'd be sure of the order of operations. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:13:27 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
Then you haven't found Apple's "Preview": https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DSF1344%20copyE2A.jpg Oh, I've found Apple's Preview; but it has been a long time since I last used Preview to create arrows (where it failed miserably to do the simplest of things). Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.apps Date: October 3, 2014 Subject: What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the 3 critical things well? Link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ocbY%5B1-25%5D Body: Quote:
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:09:49 -0500, Mayayana wrote:
According to Wikipedia that's a Mac-only program. We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014 and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks. Subject: What is a good app for editing screenshots that does the 3 critical things well? (date October 3, 2014) The long gory detailed thread is he https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ocbY%5B1-25%5D The thread simply asked for the best freebie program on the Mac that did the basic screenshot editing tasks well, and it tenably concluded (after almost a thousand posts) that none exist that did basic editing tasks as well as does Paint.NET on Windows. In that thread, the one-to-one comparison of steps and results was made, where you'd be utterly shocked at what Mac users put up with, at least in their freeware options for basic screenshot editing. The mac users gave tons of excuses but the question was a fair question, and the results were tenably definitive. No sense rehashing that out here, unless Apple substantially (and I mean very substantially) improved the basic editing features of Apple's Preview in the interim. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:02:48 -0500, PeterN wrote:
I have never used the freeware programs for processing and cannot compare them to PS. I have changed the canvas size many times in PS, and find it trivial to extend the canvas, on any side. As in many other objectives, there are several methods to extend the canvas. For my purposes a simple resize works just fine. I don't generally work on photographs so much as screenshots, so the basic freeware combination of Irfanview for what it does best, and Paint.NET for what it does best, is what I use mostly. Since I don't use the payware stuff you use, I can't say the next sentence with certain assurances; but having used freebie editing programs for decades, I can say with reasonable confidence the following two sentences: 1. Nothing on Windows is faster (nor simpler) than Irfanview, for viewing images, setting up basic batch processing of those images, and for cropping and adding a set-sized canvas to all the photos to be batch resized, converted and renamed. Howeever, Irfanview positively sucks in the things that Paint.NET excels in. 2. Nothing on Windows is both easier for a suite of basic curved arrows than the way the arrow features of Paint.NET was designed. The feature to add captions is pretty good, as is the feature that circles things with boxes and elipses, but the real beauty of Paint.NET is how it does arrowing. The portable editor with the most promise, is Pinta: http://pinta.en.softonic.com/mac In my humble opinion, any engineers who are designing a new paint program, should first try out these two sets of features for basic screenshot editing. They use the fewest steps possible and cover a wide range of basic options. As an example of how to add text wrong, with Paint.NET you just click once and start typing. If you want to change fonts or colors or position, you can do that at any time, but it's just point and type to start. In many other programs, you have to draw a bounding box first, which is just crazy to add an unnecessary step that adds no initial value. Likewise, for arrowing, in Paint.NET you just click on the start point (which sets the direction) and then you click on the ending point. The line you drew is "alive" in that you can change the shape, curves, width, color, dottedness, arrows, endshapes, etc., at any time. That's how adding text and arrowing should work, IMHO. Any other way is too many unnecessary steps, AFAIK. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Why exactly does Paint.NET make bigger files than Irfanview?
In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote: We already tested Preview in detail for this exact purpose way back in 2014 and it failed to do simple screenshot editing tasks. *you* failed. the app did not fail. preview is a very capable tool to make simple edits (and even not so simple), the types of things you've described. it's one of the more underrated apps on a mac. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|